December 12, 2011

In 2008, while arguing for the need to formally introduce Sharia law into the law of the United Kingdom, the Archbishop of Canterbury claimed Sharia law was “inevitable” in the UK . He denied it was an “alien” system and called for “constructive accommodation” of Muslim law. He did this in a calculated and provocative manner, while denying a place for its more “extreme punishments.”

It is unlikely that many members of the Muslim community would be satisfied with an Anglican primate determining the limitations of the Quran and Sharia law.

This argument was rapidly followed by the Lord Chief Justice: Lord Phillips helpfully said there was a place for Sharia law, particularly in mediation. He lamented the “widespread misunderstanding” of Sharia law. The newly established Muslim Arbitration Tribunals immediately put a picture of the Lord Chief Justice on their website in appreciation of his endorsement.

In the United Kingdom, the many thousands of Sharia courts can quietly go about their business of implementing “justice” in a form totally “alien” to the Judeo-Christian tradition, denying human rights to many of our citizens — particularly women.

The “constructive accommodation” of Muslim law reached a logical conclusion with the declaration this year of Sharia law controlled zones in a number of areas geographically spread over the country, where the Islamist militants enforce their will. Their posters declare: “No music or concerts, no porn or prostitution, no drugs or smoking, no gambling, no alcohol.” A reign of terror has begun, with threats of implicit violence against anyone who “insults” Islam, changes religion, or fails to dress appropriately. I have already been contacted about assisting two individuals subject to Islamist threats.

The police stand passively by, adhering to their diversity training.

If the Labour Party had won the last general election in 2010, I believe they would have introduced Sharia law into the United Kingdom. Things have changed for the better since David Cameron became prime minister — he has criticized “state multiculturalism” as causative of terrorism and radicalism. An inquiry of the Ministry of Justice into the operation of Sharia courts had to be stopped as Muslim leaders refused to cooperate with the government; they wanted to continue to execute Sharia law in secrecy. However, this has only heightened concerns. A Conservative peer has sought to introduce legislation delimiting the operation of Sharia courts as discriminatory against women. The home secretary has at last refused entry visas to “hate preachers” like Zakir Naik. (The last Labour government welcomed Hezbollah terrorists to lecture the police on “political Islam.”)

When I was a boy growing up in London, as Roger Kimball has written, terms like “Sharia” and “jihad” were anthropological phrases analogous to witch burning, using leeches to draw blood, and cannibalism. It would have been beyond my comprehension that our political elite would seek to introduce this medieval system into one of the most advanced societies in the world.

Sharia law is the antithesis of law as representative of rational human endeavor to alleviate the human condition.

In this short piece, it is not possible to fully illuminate the “establishment” of Islam in the United Kingdom (as described by the First Amendment). I can only give examples.

An interesting case of mine involved a church in a part of the country declared a “Sharia law controlled zone.” The church had existed for about 150 years, but it was served with a noise pollution notice for the singing of hymns on a Sunday morning at 10:30 a.m. As the notice was served, the council officer said: “This is a Muslim area.” (Naturally, this statement was denied in court.)

However, it was the court experience which was most disturbing; the local court was in an area with a high Muslim population, and the majority of the judges hearing the case were Muslim. The court closed the church. I thought the only image missing from the scene was about 200 mullahs demonstrating outside the court for the death of the infidels.

The case was appealed, and moved to a district that was predominantly English (where the appeal court was situated). The court opened the church.

This case was similar to a case where Muslim police officers prevented two street preachers, Arthur Cunningham and Joseph Abraham, from evangelizing in Birmingham. The Muslim police office called it a “hate crime” to seek to convert Muslim youths. A Muslim police office failed to uphold British values: social cohesion requires that the appointment of Muslim judges and police officers is in accordance with British standards and values.

In 2005, the BBC broadcast Jerry Springer — The Opera. It conformed to the usual high standards of the BBC: Jesus in a nappy; Jesus a “little bit gay”; the fondling of Jesus’s genitals. Fifty-five thousand complaints were received, and ignored — the BBC governors declared the program “artistically exceptional.” There was legal action against the BBC, but they bravely defended themselves — using taxpayers’ money — by asserting their willingness to challenge sensitivities. No apology was given.

How brave. Yet their courage seems to fail with Islam, and there has yet to be such an “artistically exceptional” program on Mohammed (nor will there ever be).

This must be juxtaposed with a BBC program titled Question Time, a flagship political discussion program in which free speech is vital to open debate. Mr. Charles Moore, a former editor of the Sunday Telegraph and the Spectator magazine, openly criticized the Muslim Council of Britain for not condemning the killing and kidnapping of British troops overseas and suggested they thought it was a “good thing.” The BBC offered a £30,000 payment from taxpayers’ money, along with an apology. No attempt was made to defend free speech.

If this decision by the BBC had been challenged as inconsistent with their position to the Christian community, it would have been dismissed by the court (with costs to pay).

In 2009, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (the underwear bomber) appeared on the world scene. He is the fourth British Muslim student leader in three years to be implicated in terrorist activity. He was a devout Nigerian student, clearly radicalized during his time at London University — many of our universities have become hotbeds of Islamic radicalism, where Jewish students keep a low profile. Of course, London University commissioned a report and denied that Umar was radicalized while in their educational care, and they defended the right of free speech. Undaunted, Islamic hate preachers continue to appear regularly at London University.

U.S. readers can rest assured that the university authorities and student unions are taking decisive measures against dangerous and radical religious groups. I was recently contacted by the Exeter University Christian Union after they were expelled from the student union for having a discriminatory membership policy. The policy? Requiring members to be … Christians! I ought to say that at the time, my U.S. colleagues assured me that no Christian society at any U.S. university would ever suffer such a “silly” fate because of the First Amendment.

Poor Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang entered a religious discussion with a Muslim guest at their bed and breakfast hotel in Liverpool. Foolishly in a private conversation, they described Mohammed as a “warlord.” They were prosecuted by the police.

The evidence was so bad that the judge effectively threw the case out (and it is instructive to note that a Muslim guest gave evidence on behalf of the couple), but this was not before a year of awaiting trial and the devastation of their business. Their bed and breakfast had been used by the local hospital, which now refused to use such an Islamophobic hostel. The state used its economic powers to ensure that British citizens’ private religious views conform to state policy.

Simultaneously, the British police act in the vanguard of the Islamification of Britain by selectively terrorizing the British population to use only the “free speech rights” of which they approve. In 2007, Channel 4 produced a documentary titled Undercover Mosque which showed video of imams saying things like: “You have to bomb the Indian businesses and, as for the Jews, you kill them physically,” among a whole range of other religious speech advocating violent jihad. A clear case of a “hate crime,” no?

The Crown Prosecution Service said no charges should be brought, and the police announced they would consider prosecuting Channel 4 for showing the documentary.

You can imagine what the average British citizen thinks. The Islamists can say what they want; anyone who criticizes this or shows it will be prosecuted by the police. Of course, Channel 4 is big enough and wealthy enough to defend itself — they sued the police for libel. The police capitulated and paid £100,000 to Channel 4, and accepted “without reservation” that the documentary was accurate and dealt with the subject matter responsibly.

The question remains: why have the imams not been arrested? And why have the police officers themselves not been arrested for interfering with the administration of justice?

Many British employers permit the hijab, but not a cross, and so on and so forth. I could continue, but I am sure you get the picture. Islam is becoming the established religion. However, while the Islamists welcome it, the causative reason is a liberal elite who are “fellow travelers” with a primitive juristic system. The Labour Party and Democratic Party are sympathetic to religious practice that discriminates against women, homosexuals, and Jews — everything they purport to be against.

This could be coming to a state near you sooner than you think.

Paul Diamond is the leading religious rights barrister in the United Kingdom.

July 09, 2011

Should we be surprised?

Reposted - link in title

A reader in London just sent us the following photo, which is fairly self-explanatory:

He included this note:

Please see attached a poster seen stuck on to a bus stop on corner of Mission Grove and Carisbrooke Road, London E17. Signs of subtlety in the message — avoiding items that might be thought of as controversial like killing homosexuals and stuffing women in bags.

I’ve extracted the poster from the image and removed the foreshortening to make a more readable copy:

July 05, 2011

We all knew this was the Islamic goal - it' was just a matter of time and numbers (of muslims). Politicians and other softheads might like to believe this goal is that of only the "extremists" - but muslims are instructed, by the Quran, to do so.

Islamic extremists have called on British Muslims to establish three independent states within the UK.

The notorious Muslims Against the Crusades (MAC) group have named Yorkshire towns Bradford and Dewsbury and Tower Hamlets in East London as testbeds for blanket sharia rule.

The medieval 'emirates' would operate entirely outside British law, according to a document on the MAC website.

Veiled women in the London borough of Tower Hamlets which has seen a rise in extremism. The Muslims Against the Crusades group says the medieval 'emirates' would function as autonomous territories and operate entirely outside British law, according to a document published on their website

Where the group envisages the autonomous areas being set up

The MAC group, led by Abu Assadullah, was set up last year and has become notorious because of its violent protests, most provocatively burning poppies during the Remembrance Day silence.

Under the heading 'Muslims should set up Islamic emirates in the UK', MAC says: 'We suggest it is time that areas with large Muslim populations declare an emirate delineating that Muslims trying to live within this area are trying to live by the sharia as much as possible with their own courts and community watch and schools and even self sufficient trade.

Likely areas for these projects might be Dewsbury or Bradford or Tower Hamlets to begin with.

'In time we can envisage that the whole of the sharia might one day be implemented starting with these enclaves.'

The call is likely to cause anger among moderate Muslims and community leaders in the areas concerned.

Ian Greenwood, leader of Bradford Council, said people would 'not allow extremists to provoke them into violence'.

A general view of Bradford in Yorkshire which Muslims Against the Crusades (MAC) group have named as one of three testbeds for blanket sharia rule

London 7/7 bomber Mohammad Sidique Khan lived in Dewsbury, which has battled to diffuse extremism in recent years. In 2007, it was alleged that a number of Muslims in Dewsbury were running an illegal Islamic court from a school and similar claims have been made in Tower Hamlets and Bradford.

Tower Hamlets council was last year accused of falling under the control of extremist groups following a documentary by the Daily Telegraph journalist Andrew Gilligan.

The plan is part of the MAC's response to the government's revised Prevent strategy to combat Islamic extremism.

In its document, called Islamic Prevent, the fanatics also call for an end to CCTV cameras in and around mosques.

It says: 'Muslims must get rid of all CCTV cameras from Muslim institutions. Sadly many mosques have today adopted CCTV cameras to spy on Muslims on behalf of the police and local authorities.'

Other inflammatory instructions include demanding the release of all Muslim prisoners, a ban on Muslims joining the police or armed forces and a rejection of British democracy.

The document ends: 'We can conclude that measures by the UK government are nothing more than an attempt by them to strip the Muslim community of their Islamic identity and to integrate them into the non-Islamic way of life.'

The revised Prevent programme, announced last month, is aimed at tackling home-grown terrorism and radicalisation of students.

It demands stricter controls on extremist literature and a more proactive approach by universities to prevent extremism.

Councillor Greenwood added: 'Extremism is less likely to emerge when people get the opportunity to come together.

'Local voluntary, community and faith groups, the council, and other public and private sector partners, all work together in Bradford to strengthen community relations and encourage better understanding and respect between all our communities.

'We believe that this is one of the best ways to build a tolerant society in which extremism plays no part.'

Tower Hamlets and Kirklees Council, the local authority for Dewsbury, refused to comment.

June 23, 2011

This was a political sham from the get go concocted by a dhimmis to curry favor with muslims. Geert Wilders only "crime" was speaking the truth about Islam. Interesting no matter how vile or hate-filled muslim demonstrations and speeches are - no one drags them up infront of a tribunal or court for hate speech. Muslims clearly have protected status in the West - paving the way for EuroMed?

Let's hope this ruling helps to clear the way for open and honest debate and reaction to the onslaught muslims are conducting against our culture, laws and way of life.

Right-wing politician Geert Wilders was today cleared by a Dutch court of inciting hatred and discrimination against Muslims.

The court in Amsterdam ruled that Mr Wilders' anti-Islam statements, while offensive to many Muslims, fell within the bounds of legitimate political debate.

Presiding judge Marcel van Oosten said the politician's claims that Islam was violent by nature and his calls to halt Muslim immigration and ban the Koran must be seen in a wider context over immigration policy.

Not guilty: Dutch right-wing politician Geert Wilders was today acquitted of charges of inciting hatred and discrimination against Muslims

'Free speech': Mr Wilders had claimed the charges against him were politically-motivated and said an 'enormous burden' had been removed from his shoulders with the ruling

He also ruled that Mr Wilders' public statement could not be directly linked to increased discrimination against Dutch Muslims.

Mr Wilders did not react as the verdict was read out, but supporters in the public gallery hugged one another and clapped after his acquittal.

One of the most powerful and popular politicians in the Netherlands, Mr Wilders was accused of inciting hatred and discrimination against Muslims through numerous public statements and with insulting them by comparing Islam with Nazism.

He said outside court: 'I'm incredibly happy with this acquittal on all counts.

'It's not only an acquittal for me, but a victory for freedom of expression in the Netherlands.

'Fortunately, you're allowed to discuss Islam in public debate and you're not muzzled in public debate. An enormous burden has fallen from my shoulders.'

High profile: Mr Wilders, one of the most popular politicians in the Netherlands, was given a police escort to the hearing in Amsterdam

The court found that Mr Wilders' rhetoric was 'on the edge of what is legally permissible', but not illegal.

The judge described statements about a 'tsunami' of immigrants as 'crude and denigrating', but legally legitimate given the wider context and his acknowledgement that those who integrate are acceptable and do not call for violence.

In speeches, written articles and a short film that incited riots around the Muslim world, Mr Wilders said Islam is an inherently violent religion, and he compared the Koran to Hitler's Mein Kampf - an especially sensitive image because of the large number of Dutch Jews handed over to the Nazis in World War Two.

Mr Wilders argued that his statements represented the views of millions of Dutch voters, that they were protected by freedom of speech law and that the court was biased against him.

June 14, 2011

One wonders if the Specialist Unit - set up months ago - to directly address the massive problem of muslim pedophiles grooming and sexually abusing young British girls - had any involvement with this latest arrest?

Dawn raids across Manchester as police move in on gang who groomed under-age girls at drug-fuelled sex parties

Dozens of vulnerable teenage girls may have been rescued from the clutches of a paedophiles after a major police operation smashed a child sex gang.

Around 100 officers swooped on houses in a series of raids yesterday arresting 10 men suspected of grooming young girls for sex.

The victims were allegedly showered with gifts and then plied with drink and drugs before being taken to special 'sex parties' in Manchester and Salford.

A mattress is taken away from one of the homes raided as part of Operation Windermere

The mattress is hauled into a police forensics van where it will be analysed by officers

At the parties the teenage girls – some as young as 14 - would be compelled to have sex with friends of the gang in what police say was a classic case of ‘sexual grooming and entrapment.’ Last night the men, all aged between 18-28, were being questioned by detectives at a number of different police stations across the North West.

Officers are briefed for the series of raids that were carried out this morning. The investigation involved around 100 detectives

The police investigation was launched after a number of girls in Stockport alerted social workers claiming they were being abused.

Assistant Chief Constable Terry Sweeney of Greater Manchester Police said: ‘It is alleged the girls were groomed by individuals who then passed the girls on to friends. It was classic grooming - providing alcohol, drugs and free food, consequently leading to sexual entrapment.

‘I hope today's action shows people that the issue of sexual exploitation is one that we take extremely seriously.’ And he has appealed for help in combating sex gangs who prey on vulnerable young girls and commit ‘horrific’ abuse.

He said: ‘'These young people are very much often left out of society in some way and were craving care and love. It seems they were provided with food and love, McDonalds food and drugs.

Search: A suited forensics officer leaves the address in the Mosside area of Manchester where the raid took place

The raids were part of a three-month investigation into the exploitation of teenage girls

‘I think the abuse can be stopped by the community working with us and telling us what is going on. If you see young males talking girls into flats and houses we would like the public to tell us about it.’ In January a gang of eight Asian men from Rochdale was arrested accused of targeting more than a dozen underage white girls with drink and drugs before turning them into sex slaves.

Last week they were charged of a variety of offences relating to sexual activity with girls under 16, rape, child prostitution and child trafficking.

Figures shows there have been 18 sex gang prosecutions since 1997 - 15 in the last three years - involving girls aged 11-16.

Last year a middle-class, privately-educated schoolgirl - also from Rochdale - was rescued after being forced to act as a sex slave to a gang of Asian men.

The troubled 14-year-old was targeted with vodka and cigarettes after being spotted by the gang wandering the streets.

She was made to have sex with a string of men before being pimped out as a white under age prostitute in Manchester city centre..

Nine men - all Asian - were later jailed after admitting a series of serious sexual offences against the teenage girl including facilitating child prostitution.

...Multiculturalism - rather than being based on mutual respect - is a parasitic ideology that encourages immigrants, to not assimilate and to aggressively insist the invaded Western countries be subservient to them and their cultures. In my opinion, multiculturalism demands 'reverse assimilation' or the inevitable loss of the indigenous culture as native populations are brainwashed, goaded, shamed and threatened to place all other cultures above their own. The following is primarily about Britain (and later more specifically England) but the same could be of much of Europe and soon the USA... There was no public debate nor any citizen vote - multiculturalism, along with militant political correctness were thrust upon and infected the populous of Great Britain like the Black Plague...

...Ever growing numbers of muslims entered/enter Britain via immigration, political asylum and family reunification. They quickly learned that multiculturalism gives them top priority and as the prioritization pendulum swung towards the muslim population and away from the British indigenous population- the reverse assimilation began - and continues today. The British people, like most "Westerners", viewed multiculturalism through their Christianity based rose-colored glasses and wanted to be seen as caring and accepting of others. Rather than being seen as a magnanimous, by the followers of Islam, such noble traits are seen as weakness or dhimmitude.Blog continues.

British Muslims must subscribe to mainstream values of freedom and equality, David Cameron will say as he declares that the doctrine of multiculturalism has “failed” and will be abandoned.

Entering the debate on national identity and religious tolerance, the Prime Ministerwill declare an end to “passive tolerance” of divided communities, and say that members of all faiths must integrate into wider society and accept core values.

To be British is to believe in freedom of speech and religion, democracy and equal rights regardless of race, sex or sexuality, he will say. Proclaiming a doctrine of “muscular liberalism”, he will say that everyone, from ministers to ordinary voters, should actively confront those who hold extremist views.

He will also warn that groups that fail to promote British values will no longer receive public money or be able to engage with the state.

His speech, to an international security conference in Munich, comes after The Daily Telegraph disclosed the extent to which the British intelligence community fears the “unique threat” of terrorist attacks by radicalised British Muslims.

Mr Cameron will promise a new willingness to argue against and “defeat” extremist ideologies that lead That means abandoning the notion that different communities should be able to live according to their own values and traditions as long as they stay within the law. “Under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and the mainstream,” Mr Cameron will say. “We have failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong.”

All Britons should believe in basic values of freedom and equality, and actively promote them, he will say. That means ensuring that immigrants learn to speak English and that all schools teach “elements of a common culture and curriculum”.

The Prime Minister will accept that multiculturalism has left some members of the white community feeling unfairly treated. Racism and intolerance are “rightly” condemned, he will say. “But when equally unacceptable views or practices have come from someone who isn’t white, we’ve been too cautious, frankly too fearful, to stand up to them.”

The speech comes after Baroness Warsi, the Conservative Party chairman, caused controversy by claiming that prejudice against Muslims was widespread and socially acceptable.

Mr Cameron will draw a clear distinction between “Islamist extremism” as a political ideology, and the Islamic faith itself. “We need to be clear: Islamic extremism and Islam are not the same thing,” he will say.

The Government is reviewing its entire strategy for counter-terrorism and community cohesion amid concern that the state is working too closely with Muslim groups that do not fully endorse liberal values. Mr Cameron will say that community groups will be scrutinised in future to see if they promote democracy, equality and integration. Those that fail the “tests” will be cut off. “No public money, no sharing of platforms with ministers,” he will say.

January 11, 2011

Just a few of the past TheOPINIONATOR posts on muslim paedophiles running amok in England. Remember these muslim predators are and continue to be protected by the blind allegiance to political correctness and Multiculturalism that has infested our government, schools, police service, etc. Our children are paying an egregiously high price for "diversity".

Not for the first time, Jack Straw has ignited a firestorm of controversy by expressing serious concerns about behaviour within the British Muslim community.

Mr Straw, whose Blackburn constituency is heavily populated by Muslims, spoke out after two British men of Pakistani descent were jailed last week for a series of rapes and sexual assaults on vulnerable young girls, whom they also groomed for sex with other gangs members or their relatives.

This was far from a one-off case. Police operations going back to 1996 have revealed a disturbingly similar pattern of collective abuse involving small groups of Muslim men committing a particular type of sexual crime.

This has typically involved abducting, raping or otherwise sexually attacking hundreds of mainly white girls aged 11 to 16, as well as enslaving them through alcohol and drugs and grooming them for sex.

Mr Straw said the reason was that some British Pakistani men regarded emotionally ‘vulnerable’ white girls as ‘easy meat’ whom they trapped through plying them with gifts and drugs.

The reaction to his remarks from certain quarters was all too predictable.

Keith Vaz, chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, said Straw’s comments were ‘pretty dangerous’. Others accused him of being ‘inflammatory’ or ‘stereotyping’ an entire community.

What all this merely illustrated, however, was the politically correct denial which exculpates the guilty by ruling out of bounds any criticism of the community to which they belong.

For far too long, this has served to suppress an absolutely vital debate which desperately needs to be had.

For while, of course, most Muslims repudiate any kind of sexual crime, the fact remains that the majority of those who are involved in this particular kind of predatory activity are Muslim.

The picture is certainly complicated. The overwhelming majority of people who are convicted in general of sex crimes — including sexual abuse within families — are white men.

Nevertheless, we do now know that most cases of gang-led, on-street grooming that have come to light involve British Muslim offenders and young white girls.

Most disturbingly, the police say that these convictions form only a small proportion of a ‘tidal wave’ of such crimes. Yet, until now, there has been a conspiracy of silence over this phenomenon.

Charities such as Barnardo’s won’t even discuss the cultural background of such criminals. The Home Office refuses to collect such statistics. And, of course, the Guardianistas condemn any such analysis as ‘racialising crime’.

Actually, there is more than a grain of truth in that particular criticism. For this is certainly not a racial issue. Indeed, one of the many red herrings in this debate is that — if cultural characteristics are discussed at all — the gangs tend to be described as ‘Asian’.

But this is to besmirch Sikhs, Hindus, ­Chinese and other Asians. For these ­particular gang members are overwhelmingly Muslim men. And the common ­characteristic is not ethnicity, but religion.

For these gang members select their victims from communities which they believe to be ‘unbelievers’ — non-Muslims whom they view with disdain and hostility.

You can see that this is not a racial but a religious animosity from the fact that, while the vast majority of the girls who are targeted are white, the victims include Sikhs and Hindus, too.

Back in 2007, The Hindu Forum Of Britain claimed that hundreds of Hindu and Sikh girls had been intimidated by Muslim men who took them on dates before terrorising them until they converted.

And the Sikh Media Monitoring group described ‘the deliberate and targeted sexual degradation of Sikh women purely because of their religion’ and how a minority of young Muslim men boasted about ‘seducing the Kaffir (unbeliever) women’.

Nevertheless, there is a particular problem with white girls. They are targeted because the men involved in these offences do not regard Muslim girls in the same way as sexual objects to be shared by all.

One Muslim man was reported as saying that white girls are targeted by such men because ‘if they did it to a Muslim girl, they’d be shot’.

White girls also tend to be seen as sluts. Mohammed Shafiq, chief executive of the Ramadhan Foundation, a national Muslim youth organisation, says: ‘These people think that white girls have fewer morals and are less valuable than our girls.’

What seems to have taken place is therefore a tragic conflation of certain primitive, religiously based attitudes towards women and unbelievers — and the degraded way in which certain white girls behave.

For in this debauched British society, highly-sexualised behaviour by even pre-teens is ignored, excused, condoned or encouraged.

Who can be surprised that young white girls willingly go with these sexual predators who pick them up when so many stagger in and out of pubs and nightclubs in a drunken haze wearing clothes that leave little to the imagination and boasting of ‘blow jobs’ or how many guys they have ‘shagged’?

Who can be surprised when even sex education materials in schools advise on oral sex and other sexual practices; teen-targeted magazines, clothing and popular culture are saturated by sexuality; and family life has often disintegrated into a procession of mum’s casual pick-ups and gross parental indifference, leaving young girls desperate for affection from any quarter?

The disgust felt by some Muslim youths at such sexually promiscuous girls can then feed into a more general hatred and hostility towards Britain and the West. Such youths form themselves into gangs bound by a common feeling of being outsiders united by a profound hostility to the society into which they were born.

But because they are indeed also part of British society, and have therefore been exposed to an education system which gives them precious little education about Britain and even less moral ­guidance, such youths often descend into the same pit of drugs, alcohol and sex as their ‘unbeliever’ peers.

Yet they come from backgrounds where, all too often, women have second-class status — a world in which some particularly extreme communities have a mindset that divides them into either virginal slaves to their husbands or prostitutes.

The resulting conflict set up in the minds of these British Muslim boys sometimes creates a disgust that turns upon the ‘slags’ and ‘slappers’.

Or — far more lethally — it leads to a self-disgust which makes them vulnerable to the message that they can purify themselves by destroying the society that has led them into such evil and ungodly ways.

It is remarkable that, even though the obscenity of rape and the inviolable rights of women over their bodies are among the shibboleths of the age, feminists and other liberals are almost totally silent when Muslims violate these sacred codes.

Muslim women are often treated abominably within their communities. But to their suffering, feminists and other right-on liberals are almost totally silent. The only sound from that lobby is the cry of ‘racist’ or ‘bigot’ hurled at anyone who dares protest at such religious slavery.

Some Muslim sexual predators may now be behind bars. Others, according to the police, may still be very much at large.

But it is multicultural, reverse-racist, sickeningly hypocritical Britain which is actually in the dock.

This is one of the most refreshing videos I’ve seen in a long time. This guy, Abu Mounisa, is a lot like Anjem Choudary — he doesn’t pussyfoot around. Forget the taqiyya, forget the kitman, forget telling the kafir all those sweet pretty lies he longs to hear! This is the real stuff, the full monty, a big barrel of pure unadulterated one hundred proof Islamic supremacist moonshine, served out for everyone to see and hear:

November 02, 2010

The gist of the below article on "respect" of muslim medical patients really boils down to muslims becoming the priority at US hospitals and sharia law dictating hospital policies. The PC jackasses will be placing muslim women & men at TOP priorities due to their supposed religious based need for privacy and female or male doctors. The mere fact that Dr. Padela is suggesting muslims be treated differently than other medical patients in America - is chilling.

How could this affect you?

If you are in an emergency room or hospital bed and a muslim woman comes along whining for her 'religious rights' and YOU are being attended to by the only female physician -who do you think is going to have their MD leave and attend the muslim?

If you are a woman in labor and your OB is a woman - and a muslim woman comes into the hospital in labor and says she requires a female OB and no others are available - kiss your female MD good-bye because the muslim woman is the PRIORITY.

OR if you are a man being attended to by the only male physician in an emergency room, etc. - and a muslim man demands that the available female MD not treat him - who do you think is going to have the male doctor pulled of their case?

And where does this leave female and male nurses, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, nurses' aides, etc? Undoubtedly scheduling will be affected and a muslim patient will undoubtedly cause a schuffling of medical personnel - at a minimum - to accomodate the priority "religion".

In fact a male physician, ignoring the demands of muslim family members and patients, who continues treating a female muslim may prove threatening and deadly consequences for him:

"In U.S.-occupied Iraq, male gynecologists have been threatened with death for attempting to treat women. Nongovernmental organizations have warned that female doctors are scarce and male doctors are being intimidated against treating women...there were two cases in which doctors reportedly were killed../ after leaving their clinics." SOURCE

The above in not just happening in Islamic countries - in France - a male obstetrician was assaulted by a muslim man - in the hospital delivery room!

"Fouad ben Moussa burst into the delivery room at a Paris hospital last November and shoved, slapped and insulted Dr Jean-Francois Oury as he examined the woman after a complicated birth, the prosecution said in court on Wednesday. Police had to intervene to remove him."SOURCE

The below reeks of multiculturalistic kowtowing (aka dhimmitude) - and you KNOW the ones who will lose out - possibly get less care and likely be forced to see an MD that you don't know as a muslim woman or man requires your attending physician because - the muslim is the priority.

By RONI CARYN RABIN

A woman in her mid-30s wearing a hijab, the traditional Muslim head covering, comes to an urgent care center complaining of leg pain. The first thing she asks: “Are there any woman doctors around?”

She declines to be alone in an exam room with a male doctor. She does not want to be touched by a man who is not a family member, even as part of a medical examination.

It’s a hypothetical situation, recounted in a new paper in The Journal of Medical Ethics, but the scenario neatly summarizes some of the dilemmas confronting health care workers in hospitals serving observant Muslim patients. When the traditional health care system cannot accommodate their needs, what are doctors and nurses to do?

Though Muslims differ in their adherence to tradition, maintaining modesty is the “overarching Islamic ethic” pertaining to interaction between the sexes, Dr. Padela wrote. The awrah, or parts of the body that are not to be exposed, differ depending on who else is present. For observant Muslim women, covering up the body is important when they are in the company of non-mahram males, those not related by blood or marriage.

People who are non-mahram adults of the opposite sex are prohibited from being alone together in a closed place where sexual intercourse could occur or where even such an accusation could be made, Dr. Padela said. A prophetic tradition states that when a non-mahram woman and man are alone together, Satan is the “third among them,” Dr. Padela noted, so the laws prohibit not only adultery but “proximity” to adultery.

As a result, Muslim men, too, may be reluctant to be cared for by female physicians.

“I don’t want to be misconstrued — I’m not advocating for separate but equal facilities” (oh yes he is - 'camels nose under the tent')of the type that exist in hospitals in Muslim countries, said Dr. Padela, a Muslim who devotes most of his time to research on Islamic medical ethics. “Sometimes it’s a simple matter of asking a patient, ‘Is there some way I can make you more comfortable?’ ”

Dr. Padela cited the case of a Muslim woman who had recently undergone surgery.

“She went to a physician whom she trusted and told him, ‘I need to at least have my head covering on when I leave the operating room,’ ” he recalled. The hijab is part of the dress code for many, though not all, Muslim women.

“When she woke up, she was wearing a gown, but her head was uncovered,” Dr. Padela said. “She was livid. She had been there many hours. She will never go back to that hospital again.”

Indeed, concerns about modesty can play out in unexpected ways in hospital settings. A few years ago, Dr. Padela was working in an emergency room when a middle-aged South Asian woman arrived by ambulance. She had fallen on her back the day before and hadn’t been able to use the bathroom for 24 hours. It was possible she had suffered a spinal cord injury.

But there was no female physician on duty, and the patient, an observant Muslim, was reluctant to be examined by a male physician. Dr. Padela eventually convinced her to allow him to examine her spinal cord, offering to wear gloves so as to avoid direct skin-to-skin contact.

The patient refused a rectal exam, yet Dr. Padela’s supervisor later criticized him for not doing one, saying he could have missed a serious injury that might have caused permanent paralysis.

While most doctors are receptive to improving communication with patients like this one, others cite time constraints, saying they “don’t have time to do an anthropologic evaluation of a family,” said Dr. Joseph Betancourt, an internist who is director of multicultural education at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

He cautioned that there is so much variation in practice among Muslims that health providers must be careful not generalize or make assumptions about patients’ beliefs and practices. Still, he said, it is helpful for doctors to know something about Muslim traditions. Having a better understanding usually improves communication and may actually save time.

Dr. Naureen Zafar is director of the Medina Clinic at Harlem Hospital Center, an initiative of the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation that is open to all but is geared toward serving West Africans, most of whom are Muslim. She said that research has shown many devout Muslim women delay accessing health care and may have very advanced disease by the time they seek medical help. “They don’t even want to give personal histories to men who are strangers to them,” she said.

Pregnant Muslim women usually seek out a female obstetrician for prenatal care and prefer to have a female doctor present at delivery. That request cannot always be accommodated, Dr. Zafar said.

“It may depend on whoever is on call when they come in to deliver,” Dr. Zafar said, adding that Islamic law allows for exceptions when it’s a “life and death situation.”

Many health care centers have already taken steps to accommodate Muslim patients. Franklin Hospital in Valley Stream on Long Island, which is part of the North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System, recently started offering patients halal food in keeping with Muslim dietary rules, said Joe Manopella, executive director of the hospital.

Other steps that hospitals might take include intake questionnaires where patients can list their religious concerns and values, Dr. Padela said. They also might provide more modest hospital gowns or give patients the option of wearing their own clothing. (see hospital gown pictured above)